After 25 years working in life sciences marketing, I thought I’d seen every iteration of the ‘digital transformation’ conversation. But the latest research from LINUS and SelectScience reveals something that should concern every marketing leader in our industry: we’ve fundamentally misunderstood what our audiences value.

 

The numbers are stark. Three out of four channels that scientists trust most are based on peer-to-peer content. Yet when we surveyed marketing executives about where they build trust, only 10 per cent prioritised peer reviews and independent sources. Meanwhile, 42 per cent of scientists rank these channels as most trusted. This isn’t a minor misalignment. It’s a crisis of relevance – and it’s costing our industry an estimated $171 million annually in wasted marketing spend.

 

Last week, I had the opportunity to moderate a panel discussion exploring this research alongside Hamid Ghanadan from LINUS, Kerry Parker from SelectScience, and two marketing leaders from emerging life sciences companies, Nuclera and bit.bio. What emerged wasn’t just data analysis; it was a wake-up call about how profoundly the buying journey has evolved, and how dangerously behind many commercial strategies have fallen.

 

The problem: we’re solving for the wrong metric

Life sciences marketing has been seduced by the allure of measurability. For too long, marketing automation platforms trained us to optimise for volume: more names, more traffic, more marketing qualified leads (MQLs). The underlying hypothesis was simply to cast a wide net, capture eyeballs, nurture them with our magic formulae, and eventually convert them to revenue.

 

That model is collapsing. Not because the technology failed, but because the fundamental assumption was wrong. Here’s what’s actually happening: scientists are now 60-70 per cent through their buying journey before they ever speak with a supplier. They’re reading peer-reviewed publications, consulting colleagues, using AI to shortlist products and arriving at your booth or booking that demo call with specific, well-researched questions. The ‘awareness and education’ phase you think you’re controlling? It’s already happened – without you.

 

The research confirms this shift unequivocally. When asked where they go for trusted information, scientists rank supplier websites fourth – behind peer-reviewed journals, independent platforms like SelectScience, and word-of-mouth recommendations. Your beautifully crafted product pages? They are prerequisites, not differentiators.

 

Even more troubling, 40 per cent of scientists said channels like social media, YouTube, and print magazines are ‘not applicable’ to any stage of their buying journey. Yet these channels continue to consume significant portions of marketing budgets because they’re easy to measure, easy to automate, and easy to justify to leadership with vanity metrics.

 

The mid-funnel disaster: where good leads go to die

The data reveals another uncomfortable truth: our funnels are broken in the middle. Top-of-funnel lead generation is working reasonably well. Bottom-of-funnel closing and upselling shows decent effectiveness. But the middle – where MQLs become sales qualified leads (SQLs) – looks anaemic at best, with conversion rates of two to seven percent. During our panel discussion, Hamid Ghanadan described this perfectly: “The funnel looks like it’s about to have a heart attack.”

 

Why is this happening? Because we’re generating names, not qualified intent. We’re prioritising quantity over quality, collecting email addresses instead of understanding barriers to purchase. The traffic-first approach creates an illusion of progress at the top, while masking the fundamental failure to actually move prospects toward meaningful decisions. Kerry Parker from SelectScience put it plainly: “If your strategy is based on name gathering without identifying genuine intention or qualification, everything downstream will falter. You can’t nurture someone who was never really interested in the first place.”

 

This is where content-first strategy becomes not just beneficial, but essential. Because content doesn’t just generate names – it filters and qualifies them. Thought leadership, peer-validated case studies, detailed application notes, ebooks, white papers and technical webinars: these are formats that attract people who are genuinely interested and actively researching solutions. They’re self-selecting for relevance.

 

What scientists actually want (and why we keep ignoring it)

Let’s be clear about what the research tells us scientists value when making purchasing decisions:

 

• Evidence, evidence, evidence. They want to see that products do what they claim, backed by independent validation. Application data, peer-reviewed publications and customer testimonials from recognised institutions carry weight. Your marketing copy does not.

 

• Peer recommendations. Word-of-mouth jumped 48 per cent in importance over the past 18 months. Scientists trust other scientists who’ve already solved similar problems. If you’re not systematically capturing and amplifying customer success stories, you’re invisible in the conversations that actually matter.

 

• Functional clarity. Before anything else, scientists need to know: does this product do what I need it to do? Can it be applied to my specific use case? This isn’t about benefits over features – it’s about technical specificity and clear, honest communication about capabilities and limitations.

 

• Breadth of information. Zoe Nilsson from bit.bio made an excellent point during our discussion: “We want you to be successful, whether or not you buy from us.” That philosophy – creating comprehensive educational resources that help researchers to succeed regardless of commercial outcome – builds the kind of long-term credibility that translates to preference when purchasing decisions arise.

 

• Authentic human connection. In an era where AI can generate endless content, authenticity matters more than ever. Scientists can spot generic, AI-written fluff instantly. They value genuine expertise, honest dialogue, and content that reflects real understanding of their challenges.

 

Compare this wish list to typical B2B life sciences marketing strategies, and the disconnect becomes obvious. We’re optimising for impressions and click-through rates, when scientists are seeking substance and credibility. We’re measuring cost per lead when we should be measuring quality of engagement and strength of relationships.

 

The content-first alternative: what it actually means

When Kerry Parker stated during our panel that “this is not about tactics, but rather about content”, she was identifying the single most important shift life sciences marketers need to make. Content-first doesn’t mean ‘create more blog posts’. It means fundamentally reorienting your strategy around what genuinely helps your audience, then selecting tactics and channels to deliver that value effectively.

 

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

 

• Start with barriers, not features.

  Before creating any content, identify what stands between your target audience and success. What technical challenges are they facing? What knowledge gaps exist? What concerns or objections prevent them from choosing your solution? Content that addresses these barriers will always outperform content that simply describes your product’s specifications.

 

• Invest in formats that build credibility.

  This means peer-reviewed publications, collaborative research with respected institutions, detailed application notes with real data, customer case studies from credible sources, and technical webinars with genuine experts. Yes, these take more time and resources than cranking out AI-generated blog posts. That’s precisely why they work.

 

• Think full funnel from the start.

  Every piece of significant content should serve multiple purposes across the buying journey. A well-documented customer success story can become case study for your website, an application note for technical depth, social media content featuring the customer, a webinar diving into methodology, a call to action in a digital campaign, or a shorter blog post.This is how you maximise investment while maintaining quality.

 

• Create content that can’t be easily replicated by AI.

  Video testimonials, in-depth customer interviews, original research and expert panel discussions are all formats that require genuine expertise and relationships. They’re defensible content moats that generic AI tools simply can’t cross.

 

• Measure what matters.Stop obsessing about volume metrics that mask quality issues.

Instead, you should track:

• • engagement depth (are people actually reading/watching?);
  • content influence on closed deals;
  • time-to-conversion for content-engaged prospects versus cold outreach;
  • and share of voice among target accounts for key topics.

 

The ROI question: making the business case for content investment

I anticipate the pushback: “This sounds expensive. How do I justify the budget?”

Here’s my response: “What’s the ROI of the $171 million our industry wastes annually on ineffective lead generation? What’s the cost of a funnel that converts only two per cent of MQLs?”

Content-first strategy isn’t more expensive than your current approach, it’s more efficient. You’re simply reallocating resources from high volume, low quality activities to lower volume, high quality activities that actually move the needle.

 

Consider this: both Nuclera and bit.bio described doing fewer things, but doing them better. Fewer conferences, but with comprehensive pre- and post-event strategies. Fewer pieces of content, but with greater depth and broader distribution. The result? Better conversion, stronger relationships and more efficient use of resources.

 

When you create content that genuinely helps your audience – when you invest in peer validation, customer evidence, and thought leadership – you’re not just generating leads. You’re building brand equity, establishing trust, creating differentiation and shortening sales cycles. These benefits compound over time in ways that tactical campaigns never can.

 

Where AI fits (and where it doesn’t)

Our panel discussion naturally touched on artificial intelligence, given its rapid proliferation across commercial teams. The research shows 47 per cent of executives already use AI, primarily for content generation and lead scoring.

 

Here’s my perspective after experimenting extensively with AI in our own agency: AI is a powerful tool for efficiency and personalisation, and a dangerous crutch for authenticity and credibility.

 

AI excels at:

• personalising outreach at scale;
• optimising existing content for SEO and readability;
• generating multiple variations for testing;
• analysing data patterns for targeting insights;
• and automating repetitive workflows.

 

AI fails at:

• generating original scientific insights;
• creating credible technical content;
• establishing genuine thought leadership;
• building authentic relationships;
• and understanding nuanced audience needs.

 

Both Kristine Friscino from Nuclera and Zoe Nilsson from bit.bio were clear: their content stems from original hypotheses, real data and genuine expertise. AI might help with formatting or proofreading, but it cannot replace the substance that scientists demand.

 

This is actually good news for those willing to invest in quality. As AI makes generic content easier to produce, the competitive advantage shifts to those who can deliver authenticity, expertise and genuine value. The bar for ‘good enough’ rises, but so does the ROI for excellence.

 

The human-AI advantage: a framework for 2026

Looking ahead to 2026, I believe successful life sciences marketing will be defined by what I’m calling the ‘human-AI advantage’: using technology to scale what works, while doubling down on the irreplaceable value of human expertise.

 

This means:

• using AI to personalise nurture sequences, not generate thought leadership;
• automating distribution and optimisation, not content creation;
• leveraging data for targeting insights, not replacing strategic thinking;
• and employing tools for efficiency gains, not substituting for genuine relationships.

 

The organisations that will thrive are those that recognise this distinction and resource accordingly. Not because they’re Luddites resistant to technology, but because they understand what actually drives trust and conversion in scientific markets.

 

How kdm communications approaches content-first strategy

This philosophy isn’t theoretical for us: it’s how we’ve operated for nearly 40 years. When we work with life sciences clients, our first conversations aren’t about tactics or channels. We start with:

• Who are you trying to reach?
• What challenges do they face?
• What evidence do you have that your solution works?
• Who can validate that?
• What do your best customers say about working with you?

 

Only after understanding these fundamentals do we discuss execution. And when we do, we focus relentlessly on quality over quantity:

 

• We develop content that educates before it sells. Application notes, technical blogs, whitepapers, and case studies that provide genuine value even to non-customers. This builds the long-term credibility that shortens sales cycles and improves conversion.

 

• We systematically capture and amplify peer validation. Working with your customers to document their success, submit collaborative research for publication, create video testimonials and contribute to industry discussions. This approach has the single highest ROI in life sciences marketing, yet it remains chronically underutilised.

 

• We create multi-purpose content platforms. A single customer success initiative becomes a written or video case study for your website, an individual for your webinar panel or conference presentation and can be mentioned in your social media campaigns. This maximises investment while maintaining consistency and quality.

 

• We measure what actually matters. Not just top-of-funnel vanity metrics, but content influence on revenue, engagement depth, time-to-conversion and share of voice on topics that matter to your business.

 

• We integrate across channels. Content-first doesn’t mean ‘only content’. It means ensuring that your website, email campaigns, paid media, PR, events and sales enablement all reinforce the same substantive messages, with the same evidence-based approach.

 

Practical next steps: what to do this quarter

If you’re a marketing leader in life sciences reading this and recognising the symptoms described, here’s what I recommend:

 

1. Audit your current trust building activities. List where you’re currently investing to build credibility. How much budget goes to peer-validated content versus brand-controlled messaging? Are you systematically capturing customer success stories? Do you have thought leadership content that establishes genuine expertise?

 

2. Conduct a mid-funnel analysis. Where exactly are prospects stalling? What barriers or objections are preventing progression? Often, the answer isn’t ‘more nurturing emails’, but rather ‘better qualification criteria’ or ‘content that addresses specific concerns’.

 

3. Map content to actual customer questions. Talk to your sales team and customers. What questions do prospects consistently ask? What concerns come up repeatedly? Create content that answers these questions definitively, and measure whether it actually reduces friction.

 

4. Identify your peer validation opportunities. Which customers have achieved impressive results? Which institutions or researchers would add credibility to your claims? What collaborative research could you pursue? These relationships take time to build, so start now.

 

5. Rebalance one campaign towards quality. Rather than attempting wholesale transformation, take one significant campaign, and apply content-first principles. Create genuinely valuable content, invest in proper distribution, measure engagement quality not just volume. Use the results to make the broader business case.

 

The bottom line: trust is earned through value, not volume

The life sciences buying journey has evolved faster than most marketing strategies. Scientists are sophisticated, sceptical and under time pressures. They don’t want more content; they want better content. They don’t trust your claims; they trust their peers. They don’t care about your funnel; they care about solving their problems.

 

The organisations that will succeed in 2026 and beyond are those that genuinely understand this reality and resource accordingly. Not because they’re anti-technology or wedded to traditional approaches, but because they recognise that, in an industry built on evidence and expertise, authenticity and credibility will always be your most defensible competitive advantages.

 

At kdm communications, we’ve spent four decades helping life sciences organisations to navigate these challenges. We understand the science, we speak the language, and we know what resonates with technical audiences. Most importantly, we believe that great marketing is built on great content, and great content requires genuine expertise, not just clever tactics.

 

If you’re wrestling with the challenges described here – stagnant conversion, misaligned budgets, or simply the sense that your marketing isn’t connecting with your audience – we should talk. Because the solution isn’t more marketing, it’s better marketing that is grounded in what your audiences actually value.

 

The opportunity is real. Scientists are preparing to spend more in 2026. The question is whether they’ll spend it with you, and that will be determined by whether you’ve earned their trust through the content and credibility you’ve built today.